DOI Artikel:
Hogarth, David G.: Egypt Exploration Fund, [4]: Report on prospects of Research in Alexandria
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.10057#0021
Alexandria, North of the Boulevard de Rosette.
9
Palaces (Caesar, Comment, iii. 112)/ and used by Cassar as a citadel,
commanding approaches to the port and docks during that period when
the Alexandrian mob were brinsfing to the direst straits the master of
the Roman world.
Before mentioning the Emporium (except in relation to the Poseidcion) Ca
Str'abo alludes to the Ciesareum. Philo (Leg. ad Caium 22), also describes
the latter as showing magnificently from the port, and Pliny (N. H. 3G,
14) says that two obelisks stood ail porluni in GwsarLs templo. The
Cassareum was therefore quite near the sea; but it seems to me
that Strabo's words in connection with the Poseideion imply that the
Emporium extended continuously from the latter to the Apostases, and
therefore in front of the Csesareum. Vicinity to the port and pre-
eminence above low buildings on the foreshore are all that a reasonable
interpretation of the words of Pliny and Philo demands.
If correct, this conclusion has an important bearing on the question of
the subsidence along the foreshore. The situation of the Csesareum was
marked up to 1S78 beyond all reasonable doubt by a still standing
obelisk, whose site is now close to the beach and fifteen years ago was
closer still, for much material has been tipped into the sea behind the
Ramleh Boulevard to secure the site of the new houses built since the
events of 1882. The Emporium, therefore, must have been absorbod
by the waves at this point; and, if so, there can be little or no doubt
that the Poseideion and Timonium have suffered the same fate.
A foreign Society, however, could hardly be expected to devote its
funds to exploring the Poseideion, or Timonium, or, indeed, the Theatre
of Alexandria, so that we may pass to the consideration of the Gcesareum,
remarking merely in passing that no certain trace of any one of the three
first mentioned has ever been found. The site of the Theatre should be
on or about the high ground occupied by the new Hospital; for probably
it was elevated, if used as a citadel, and it must have been quite con-
tiguous to the Quarter of the Palaces ; but Signor Botti failed to find in the
pits which he dug in 1894 on the north-west and north-east of the
Hospital hill any decisive indications. At some later period a church
seems to have been built on this site. Possibly it would be better to
1 Pars erat rcgiae exigua in qua/in ipse halitandi causa initio erat inducing, et
theatrum conjunctum domui quod arcis tcnebat locum adilusque hahebat adportum et ad
reliqua navalia. I see no reason to doubt that the main Theatre is intended here: only
a very massive building could have been so used by Caisar. The use to which he put
it has often been paralleled since his time, e.g. in the case of the Theatres at
Orange, and of Herodes Atticus at Athens; and of amphitheatres almost wherever
they still exist.
9
Palaces (Caesar, Comment, iii. 112)/ and used by Cassar as a citadel,
commanding approaches to the port and docks during that period when
the Alexandrian mob were brinsfing to the direst straits the master of
the Roman world.
Before mentioning the Emporium (except in relation to the Poseidcion) Ca
Str'abo alludes to the Ciesareum. Philo (Leg. ad Caium 22), also describes
the latter as showing magnificently from the port, and Pliny (N. H. 3G,
14) says that two obelisks stood ail porluni in GwsarLs templo. The
Cassareum was therefore quite near the sea; but it seems to me
that Strabo's words in connection with the Poseideion imply that the
Emporium extended continuously from the latter to the Apostases, and
therefore in front of the Csesareum. Vicinity to the port and pre-
eminence above low buildings on the foreshore are all that a reasonable
interpretation of the words of Pliny and Philo demands.
If correct, this conclusion has an important bearing on the question of
the subsidence along the foreshore. The situation of the Csesareum was
marked up to 1S78 beyond all reasonable doubt by a still standing
obelisk, whose site is now close to the beach and fifteen years ago was
closer still, for much material has been tipped into the sea behind the
Ramleh Boulevard to secure the site of the new houses built since the
events of 1882. The Emporium, therefore, must have been absorbod
by the waves at this point; and, if so, there can be little or no doubt
that the Poseideion and Timonium have suffered the same fate.
A foreign Society, however, could hardly be expected to devote its
funds to exploring the Poseideion, or Timonium, or, indeed, the Theatre
of Alexandria, so that we may pass to the consideration of the Gcesareum,
remarking merely in passing that no certain trace of any one of the three
first mentioned has ever been found. The site of the Theatre should be
on or about the high ground occupied by the new Hospital; for probably
it was elevated, if used as a citadel, and it must have been quite con-
tiguous to the Quarter of the Palaces ; but Signor Botti failed to find in the
pits which he dug in 1894 on the north-west and north-east of the
Hospital hill any decisive indications. At some later period a church
seems to have been built on this site. Possibly it would be better to
1 Pars erat rcgiae exigua in qua/in ipse halitandi causa initio erat inducing, et
theatrum conjunctum domui quod arcis tcnebat locum adilusque hahebat adportum et ad
reliqua navalia. I see no reason to doubt that the main Theatre is intended here: only
a very massive building could have been so used by Caisar. The use to which he put
it has often been paralleled since his time, e.g. in the case of the Theatres at
Orange, and of Herodes Atticus at Athens; and of amphitheatres almost wherever
they still exist.